Attention!!! Pro Sports Daily will be down on Wednesday morning from 5:00am - 7:00am eastern time for database maintenance. All Sports Direct Inc. properties will be down during this scheduled outage.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may cause.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

News Corp.'s $1,000,000 gift to the GOP

Like any other companies, media companies have long dabbled in giving money to politicians in an effort to curry favor or protect their bottom lines. But News Corp.’s $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association isn’t business as usual – in either size or style.
And it’s got media analysts and political pros wondering just what News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch – the man behind Fox News and the Wall Street Journal — is up to now.
Political analysts said it was highly unusual for the company not to make a comparable contribution to Democrats, in the way most corporate givers (including News Corp.) usually give – both to hedge their bets and to maintain a sense of even-handedness. And the size of the donation, the largest corporate contribution to the RGA this cycle, was eye-opening for a media company.

There has never been anything like this in size or one sided giving by a "news" organization before

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

In a world where corporate donations are the equivalent of personal political speech, which is the world we are living in, this donation from Fox News parent company puts to rest the fair and balanced question, and even puts the fair question to rest. This company did what no other news broadcasting company has ever done by giving $1,000,000 to the GOP. It means that their so called straight news is something less than honest.

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

Who ever thought Fox News has ever been fair and balanced needs a brain check. We know MSNBC isnt fair and balanced but at least they are not out there with the fair and balanced slogan like Fox News is.

News Corp donated $2,300 to Hilary Clinton for President in 2008. Now i will say that it can be construed as supporting the candidate who lost, but i thought it was worth mentioning. Also they have donated to Anthony Weiner, who is an outspoken liberal.

I assumed this was what you were referring to in the other thread, but I didn't want to leap to conclusions.

It's important to note that News Corp is not Fox News. They're the parent company. A big corporation that has a political action committee that makes political contributions.

GE (owner of NBC) and Time Warner (owner of CNN) also have PACs.

The 1 million to the RGA is a big donation, but if you want to stretch that into "PROOF OF FOX BIAS!" it's a bit of a leap. The News Corp PAC has also donated to Harry Reid. A small sum, but still. Prior to this huge donation, their money had been split pretty evenly between Dems and Repubs. I don't see anything inherently nefarious about this particular donation.

I think that Fox News does lean right. I think that's pretty obvious. I disagree with the claim that that precludes it from being news though. Fox News isn't any more to the right, than any of the others are to the left. And I'm talking their newspeople here, not the Becks and Hannitys of the world. Their anchor lineup of Megyn Kelly, Brett Baier, and Shepard Smith is pretty solid.

Also. One last minor point. Wouldn't News Corp giving a bunch of money to the GOP make the GOP an arm of News Corp, and not the other way around? That's the way that argument usually goes, right? Or is the implication that owners of a news company can't have political ideologies? Basically. I don't get it.

Originally Posted by lamar2006

Who ever thought Fox News has ever been fair and balanced needs a brain check. We know MSNBC isnt fair and balanced but at least they are not out there with the fair and balanced slogan like Fox News is

But what actual difference does that make?

The question I would pose to you is this. Ok. Fox News is right. MSNBC is left. Do you think that CNN is down the middle? Because I don't.

I assumed this was what you were referring to in the other thread, but I didn't want to leap to conclusions.

It's important to note that News Corp is not Fox News. They're the parent company. A big corporation that has a political action committee that makes political contributions.

GE (owner of NBC) and Time Warner (owner of CNN) also have PACs.

The 1 million to the RGA is a big donation, but if you want to stretch that into "PROOF OF FOX BIAS!" it's a bit of a leap. The News Corp PAC has also donated to Harry Reid. A small sum, but still. Prior to this huge donation, their money had been split pretty evenly between Dems and Repubs. I don't see anything inherently nefarious about this particular donation.

I think that Fox News does lean right. I think that's pretty obvious. I disagree with the claim that that precludes it from being news though. Fox News isn't any more to the right, than any of the others are to the left. And I'm talking their newspeople here, not the Becks and Hannitys of the world. Their anchor lineup of Megyn Kelly, Brett Baier, and Shepard Smith is pretty solid.

But what actual difference does that make?

The question I would pose to you is this. Ok. Fox News is right. MSNBC is left. Do you think that CNN is down the middle? Because I don't.

lol I find it funny that you would talk about a company's political compass by judging the cast of personalities rather than news content. It's not the words used to relay the news or which news to present to the public but Olbermann's, Barbara Walters's, etc that define their stance.

I assumed this was what you were referring to in the other thread, but I didn't want to leap to conclusions.

It's important to note that News Corp is not Fox News. They're the parent company. A big corporation that has a political action committee that makes political contributions.

GE (owner of NBC) and Time Warner (owner of CNN) also have PACs.

The 1 million to the RGA is a big donation, but if you want to stretch that into "PROOF OF FOX BIAS!" it's a bit of a leap. The News Corp PAC has also donated to Harry Reid. A small sum, but still. Prior to this huge donation, their money had been split pretty evenly between Dems and Repubs. I don't see anything inherently nefarious about this particular donation.

I think that Fox News does lean right. I think that's pretty obvious. I disagree with the claim that that precludes it from being news though. Fox News isn't any more to the right, than any of the others are to the left. And I'm talking their newspeople here, not the Becks and Hannitys of the world. Their anchor lineup of Megyn Kelly, Brett Baier, and Shepard Smith is pretty solid.

Also. One last minor point. Wouldn't News Corp giving a bunch of money to the GOP make the GOP an arm of News Corp, and not the other way around? That's the way that argument usually goes, right? Or is the implication that owners of a news company can't have political ideologies? Basically. I don't get it.

But what actual difference does that make?

The question I would pose to you is this. Ok. Fox News is right. MSNBC is left. Do you think that CNN is down the middle? Because I don't.

I agree with, what i assume to be your central premise. If i am getting it wrong, please feel free to correct me: Fox is to the right, but so are MSNBC to the left.

I dont have a problem with Fox being right/conservative/whatever you want to call it. I just have a problem with them crouching behind the "fair and balanced" emblem. There is no way they would let MSNBC claim to be "fair and balanced" (this is assuming that Fox didnt own the trademark). Because they arent balanced, just as Fox isnt.

As a sticking point, i dont consider Megyn Kelly to be "neutral", i think she is dangerously close to being more personality than news. The other people you mentioned i actually enjoy listening to because i think they are more balanced. The daytime people for both networks are actually very good in my opinion when i have time between classes i will watch them will getting some work done and switch back between them.

That seems like such a menial point to me though. "They say fair and balanced, but they aren't!"

As far as the daytime people. MSNBC actually seems to be going more towards opinion lately. Their lineup is Schultz-Matthews-Olbermann-Maddow-O'donnell(starting Monday). They actually don't have an evening news show. I'm not familiar with who their lead anchor would be. Contessa Brewer? They tried anchoring election coverage with an Olbermann/Matthews combo which didn't work out.

Oh. And my central thesis isn't really about MSNBC. It's just that Fox News leans right. But having a certain political sway doesn't really say that much, due to the fact that everyone (not just MSNBC) is going to have some bias. I don't think straight, right down the middle news is even possible. And I don't view that as problematic. People are smart enough to wade through everything, and find what they like/dislike and what they agree with and disagree with.

That seems like such a menial point to me though. "They say fair and balanced, but they aren't!"

As far as the daytime people. MSNBC actually seems to be going more towards opinion lately. Their lineup is Schultz-Matthews-Olbermann-Maddow-O'donnell(starting Monday). They actually don't have an evening news show. I'm not familiar with who their lead anchor would be. Contessa Brewer? They tried anchoring election coverage with an Olbermann/Matthews combo which didn't work out.

Oh. And my central thesis isn't really about MSNBC. It's just that Fox News leans right. But having a certain political sway doesn't really say that much, due to the fact that everyone (not just MSNBC) is going to have some bias. I don't think straight, right down the middle news is even possible. And I don't view that as problematic. People are smart enough to wade through everything, and find what they like/dislike and what they agree with and disagree with.

Sorry, in terms of daytime i think of the noon to three guys. The people that 95% of people (who are working) dont usually see. I agree it is a quick splash with Ed Schultz. But they do it on Fox too with Beck.

I agree that they dont have a news show at night, they try with Maddow, but she injects herself more than Greta does. The local news i think is better for "news" anyways.

As i stated, i think Greta is the most "fair and balanced" (to use the phrase) of the latenight people.

lol I find it funny that you would talk about a company's political compass by judging the cast of personalities rather than news content. It's not the words used to relay the news or which news to present to the public but Olbermann's, Barbara Walters's, etc that define their stance.

I assumed this was what you were referring to in the other thread, but I didn't want to leap to conclusions.

It's important to note that News Corp is not Fox News. They're the parent company. A big corporation that has a political action committee that makes political contributions.

GE (owner of NBC) and Time Warner (owner of CNN) also have PACs.

The 1 million to the RGA is a big donation, but if you want to stretch that into "PROOF OF FOX BIAS!" it's a bit of a leap. The News Corp PAC has also donated to Harry Reid. A small sum, but still. Prior to this huge donation, their money had been split pretty evenly between Dems and Repubs. I don't see anything inherently nefarious about this particular donation.

I think that Fox News does lean right. I think that's pretty obvious. I disagree with the claim that that precludes it from being news though. Fox News isn't any more to the right, than any of the others are to the left. And I'm talking their newspeople here, not the Becks and Hannitys of the world. Their anchor lineup of Megyn Kelly, Brett Baier, and Shepard Smith is pretty solid.

Also. One last minor point. Wouldn't News Corp giving a bunch of money to the GOP make the GOP an arm of News Corp, and not the other way around? That's the way that argument usually goes, right? Or is the implication that owners of a news company can't have political ideologies? Basically. I don't get it.

But what actual difference does that make?

The question I would pose to you is this. Ok. Fox News is right. MSNBC is left. Do you think that CNN is down the middle? Because I don't.

First, I agree that with you that News Corp is the holding company of Fox News, and that as such is not exactly the same, but in practice, the policies of News Corp are followed uniformly at every news outlet owned by News Corp. In fact, the latest manifestation of this has filtered down to its local television stations. So, although in a technical sense you are correct, in a practical sense, as far as a $1,000,000 gift to the GOP, it is one in the same.

Second, you are also correct that corporations have PAC's, what makes this gift different is its magnitude. Comparing the participation of gifts of far smaller magnitude is like comparing the bite of a flea with the bite of a tiger. While they are both bites, they are in no way comparable. Additionally, most companies have tended to make substantially equal gifts, while this is so one sided, that it is just not close.

Third, the question about the GOP being an arm of Fox News, or vice versa, with Fox being a fund raising arm of the GOP is worthy of another thread, but I would point out that Sharron Angle has said that appearances on Fox is an important part of her fund raising and Christine O'Donnell while appearing on Hannity said she was not making national news interviews. I agree, she was not making an appearance on a national news show, but, a fundraising appearance.

Your question about what difference it makes is in fact the difference between a reporter and a columnist. One is supposed to try to be impartial, the other has no requirement to do so, an in fact, is supposed to offer their opinion. In this case, it is the pre News Corp ownership of the Wall Street Journal. The front section was fair and independent. The opinion pages were strongly conservative. For years I subscribed to it. I no longer do, because the opinion section has moved to the front page, without labeling it as such. In the case of Fox News, the opinion section is (with the exception of Shep) moved to the news section. The $1,000,000 gift puts them as a "news provider" in the same category as Andrew Breitbart, without the honest preamble that Breitbart says he is strictly trying to promote a right wing agenda.

By it's one sided HUGE gift to the GOP, and, by it's past and present history of changing the news reporting in all of it's owned properties, it now has shown in a BIG GREEN MANNER, that it and the GOP, and more specifically the right wing of the GOP are one in the same.

Finally, the answer to your CNN question, from my perspective, is muddled.

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

And based on your standards what is news and what isn't news becomes extremely muddled (to use your word).

Your fund-raising point is a good one IF they don't extend the same option for Democrats. I'm not aware of a case where Fox has denied a Democrat the option of plugging their site. Maybe they have, I don't know.

Basically. From my view, if you disqualify Fox News as "news" then news doesn't exist on television. Which I'm willing to accept. But, for simplicity's sake...I'll stick to calling it news.

And based on your standards what is news and what isn't news becomes extremely muddled (to use your word).

Your fund-raising point is a good one IF they don't extend the same option for Democrats. I'm not aware of a case where Fox has denied a Democrat the option of plugging their site. Maybe they have, I don't know.

Basically. From my view, if you disqualify Fox News as "news" then news doesn't exist on television. Which I'm willing to accept. But, for simplicity's sake...I'll stick to calling it news.

Just the bold part, if you look, you will see the active participation in Republican fund raising functions by hosts of programs on Fox, and by many of the regular participants. It is not just the going on and being interviewed. It is also the hosting of programs by actual candidates (although not presently declared) like Huckabee and Palin. Or the continual televising of Rove who runs a major GOP PAC. Or people like Beck saying on air to Michele Bachmann, "How can I help you raise money?" (twice) and "We should have a fund raiser for you Michele." (October 14,2009) on his program. I really could go on, seriously, but it would just be saying the same thing about many different people.

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?